Excerpt 6 June 1988)
4.3 Research Questions
This paper attempts to account for Possessive/Existential (P/E) overlap in second language acquisition (SLA). First, I will present an overview of language typological literature demonstrating that coalescence of form and function in this way is both natural and common. Then, using SLA data from several sources, and longitudinal data collected from the speaker …, I explore in greater detail the notion that language learn- ers are likely to adopt one form in their early syntactic development to accomplish both P and E—even when the interlanguage (IL) con- struction is ungrammatical (or at least marked) in the target language. I will then argue that attributing IL production in this domain to language transfer alone is inadequate; otherwise, it would be equally predictable, for example, for learners with a first language (L1) like English to encode P and E with distinct morphology in an undifferentiating language such as Chinese as a second language (L2), which apparently does not hap- pen. Rather, the preference for P/E overlap promotes L1 transfer in a predictable direction, resulting in convergence, especially in untutored and low-level instructed SLA. (p. 2)
The purpose of my study—to examine particular kinds of syntactic development in SLA—is stated, and the general claims to be made based on the study, and even speculative predictions, are foreshadowed, together with the reasoning behind them. Of course, because article introductions are normally written after a study has been conducted, there is usually more clarity about the research outcomes than when the researcher first embarks on the study.
question suggests that the study will be interpretive and possibly critical (of educational or public policy), answering the question “Why?”
Spack (1997) began her case study of the literacy development of her subject Yuko, a Japanese learner of English at a U.S. university, with the four exploratory (descriptive) framing questions (p. 5) shown on the left side of Figure 4.2, in which I capture Spack’s research question develop- ment. Within three weeks, however, she produced two more focused ques- tions, as shown on the right side of the figure (p. 6).
In effect, the first set of questions sought fairly basic background information, based on Yuko’s history of Japanese and English education in Japan, and also related to what Spack hoped to learn upon first meeting her case study participant. The second set of questions were broader and more conceptual, although the questions still needed a bit more sharpen-
1. How and how much had Yuko studied and learned English before
matriculating in the [Japanese]
university?
2. How much reading and writing—and what kind of reading and writing—had she done in Japanese?
3. Did these literacy experiences differ?
4. What could my knowledge of this background teach me about both the significance of her TOEFL score and her performance in a first-year ESL composition program (consisting of one-semester courses)?
1. What features of Yuko’s linguistic, educational, and cultural background constrained her ability to manage an introductory [International Relations] course (in spite of her high TOEFL score)?
2. What features of this particular IR course acted as barriers to Yuko’s success in the course?
Figure 4.2 Spack’s research question development.
ing. They did not specify that the focus was reading and writing activities, and success with them specifically, nor were the terms success or manage defined. Typically, operational definitions or an explanation of key terms would be included in the methodology section of the study if not in the immediate vicinity of the stated questions. One reason for the evolution of questions in this case is that the study began without a clear purpose;
it was more curiosity driven, opportunistic, and exploratory. However, the research problem is evident: that there are barriers to international students’
academic success related not only to their own personal backgrounds and prior education, but also to the way courses are taught.
Ioup et al.’s (1994) research questions regarding “talented” L2 learners in Egypt were more straightforward and carefully conceived. It appears that the questions were formulated after the researchers came to know about the participants’ exceptional Arabic proficiency, since there was no mention of formal recruitment for this study. The research questions outlined, respectively, the intended comparisons of (1) Arabic–L2 learn- ers’ competence compared with native Egyptian Arabic speakers, and (2) the grammatical proficiency of tutored (or instructed) versus untutored L2 learners of Arabic:
1. How does the linguistic competence of a talented untutored adult L2 learner compare with that of native speakers?
2. Do tutored and untutored L2 learners who achieve near-native levels of proficiency exhibit similar achievement in the various domains of gram- mar? (p. 77)
Norton (2000), in her multiple-case study of adult immigrant women learning ESL in Canada, collapsed her research questions into two sets.
The first has implicit embedded theoretical assumptions related to the relationship between interaction and acquisition, the importance of social structures (possibly hierarchical power relations, race, class, gender, etc.) in interaction, and the learners’ own agency. This set also introduces the con- structs of investment and identity. The second set of questions has theory- building and pedagogical implications as its primary objectives.
1. Since interaction with target language speakers is a desirable condition for adult SLA, what opportunities for interaction exist outside the classroom?
How is this interaction socially structured? How do learners act upon these structures to create, use or resist opportunities to speak? To what extent should their actions be understood with reference to their investment in the target language and their changing identities across time and space?
2. How can an enhanced understanding of identity and natural language learning inform both SLA theory and classroom practice? (p. 22)
Research committees and other readers, such as journal manuscript reviewers, usually expect to find easily identified research questions set apart from the surrounding text. However, not all published case studies in journals present their guiding questions in this fashion. For example, Schnei- derman and Desmerais’s (1988b) study of “talented” learners’ behaviors begins with a theoretical background and then presents four hypotheses to be tested. Yet no research questions are presented. Other studies (e.g., Lam, 2004) may proceed from the literature review directly to a discussion of research context and procedures, or pose their questions a bit more indi- rectly. Lam’s study of two adolescent girls’ development of hybrid bilin- gual Cantonese English discourse practices in their transnational Internet communications exemplifies this less direct and less explicit approach.
The italics flag the embedded research questions:
For US-based ESL learners who are participating through English in the social world of the Internet, the question arises as to what language practices and social relations they are developing through English, and how these practices on the Internet relate to their experiences with Eng- lish in the US. A related question of particular interest to educators is how their participation in the networked environments affects their pro- cesses of English learning. (Lam, 2004, p. 5, italics added)
Thus, different writers and editorial boards may have preferences about how the main questions to be addressed in case studies are presented (see Chapter 6). Their stylistic choices may also be related to the purpose of the case under examination and the audience.